Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 391 | control, N = 191 | treatment, N = 201 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 39 | 50.16 ± 13.09 (25 - 72) | 49.31 ± 13.19 (25 - 72) | 50.98 ± 13.28 (32 - 72) | 0.696 |
gender | 39 | 0.257 | |||
f | 26 (67%) | 11 (58%) | 15 (75%) | ||
m | 13 (33%) | 8 (42%) | 5 (25%) | ||
occupation | 39 | 0.946 | |||
full_time | 5 (13%) | 3 (16%) | 2 (10%) | ||
homemaker | 2 (5.1%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.0%) | ||
other | 2 (5.1%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (10%) | ||
part_time | 6 (15%) | 4 (21%) | 2 (10%) | ||
retired | 11 (28%) | 5 (26%) | 6 (30%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (5.1%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.0%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (5.1%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.0%) | ||
unemploy | 9 (23%) | 4 (21%) | 5 (25%) | ||
marital | 39 | >0.999 | |||
divore | 5 (13%) | 3 (16%) | 2 (10%) | ||
married | 7 (18%) | 3 (16%) | 4 (20%) | ||
none | 21 (54%) | 10 (53%) | 11 (55%) | ||
seperation | 3 (7.7%) | 2 (11%) | 1 (5.0%) | ||
widow | 3 (7.7%) | 1 (5.3%) | 2 (10%) | ||
edu | 39 | 0.479 | |||
bachelor | 12 (31%) | 5 (26%) | 7 (35%) | ||
diploma | 7 (18%) | 5 (26%) | 2 (10%) | ||
hd_ad | 1 (2.6%) | 1 (5.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
postgraduate | 4 (10%) | 2 (11%) | 2 (10%) | ||
primary | 4 (10%) | 1 (5.3%) | 3 (15%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 2 (5.1%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 8 (21%) | 5 (26%) | 3 (15%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 1 (2.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (5.0%) | ||
fam_income | 39 | 0.863 | |||
10001_12000 | 3 (7.7%) | 1 (5.3%) | 2 (10%) | ||
12001_14000 | 1 (2.6%) | 1 (5.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
14001_16000 | 4 (10%) | 1 (5.3%) | 3 (15%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (5.1%) | 1 (5.3%) | 1 (5.0%) | ||
18001_20000 | 1 (2.6%) | 1 (5.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 7 (18%) | 5 (26%) | 2 (10%) | ||
2001_4000 | 5 (13%) | 2 (11%) | 3 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 6 (15%) | 3 (16%) | 3 (15%) | ||
6001_8000 | 3 (7.7%) | 2 (11%) | 1 (5.0%) | ||
8001_10000 | 3 (7.7%) | 1 (5.3%) | 2 (10%) | ||
below_2000 | 4 (10%) | 1 (5.3%) | 3 (15%) | ||
medication | 39 | 34 (87%) | 16 (84%) | 18 (90%) | 0.661 |
onset_duration | 39 | 16.70 ± 12.83 (0 - 56) | 17.78 ± 15.00 (1 - 56) | 15.68 ± 10.66 (0 - 35) | 0.616 |
onset_age | 39 | 33.46 ± 12.66 (15 - 62) | 31.53 ± 11.38 (16 - 55) | 35.30 ± 13.82 (15 - 62) | 0.360 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 391 | control, N = 191 | treatment, N = 201 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 39 | 3.54 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.58 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 3.50 ± 1.28 (1 - 5) | 0.845 |
recovery_stage_b | 39 | 18.41 ± 2.74 (9 - 23) | 18.53 ± 3.03 (9 - 23) | 18.30 ± 2.52 (14 - 23) | 0.800 |
ras_confidence | 39 | 31.28 ± 4.45 (22 - 40) | 31.00 ± 3.86 (26 - 40) | 31.55 ± 5.03 (22 - 39) | 0.705 |
ras_willingness | 39 | 12.33 ± 2.04 (7 - 15) | 12.53 ± 1.71 (9 - 15) | 12.15 ± 2.35 (7 - 15) | 0.572 |
ras_goal | 39 | 17.92 ± 2.99 (12 - 24) | 18.11 ± 2.73 (13 - 23) | 17.75 ± 3.29 (12 - 24) | 0.716 |
ras_reliance | 39 | 13.46 ± 3.21 (8 - 20) | 13.42 ± 2.89 (8 - 18) | 13.50 ± 3.56 (8 - 20) | 0.940 |
ras_domination | 39 | 10.26 ± 2.52 (3 - 15) | 11.11 ± 1.73 (8 - 15) | 9.45 ± 2.91 (3 - 14) | 0.039 |
symptom | 39 | 29.69 ± 10.67 (14 - 56) | 28.53 ± 9.00 (14 - 45) | 30.80 ± 12.18 (15 - 56) | 0.513 |
slof_work | 39 | 23.23 ± 5.09 (10 - 30) | 24.05 ± 4.60 (15 - 30) | 22.45 ± 5.52 (10 - 30) | 0.332 |
slof_relationship | 39 | 26.82 ± 5.74 (11 - 35) | 27.84 ± 5.33 (19 - 35) | 25.85 ± 6.08 (11 - 35) | 0.285 |
satisfaction | 39 | 21.62 ± 6.99 (5 - 30) | 20.47 ± 6.74 (5 - 29) | 22.70 ± 7.23 (5 - 30) | 0.327 |
mhc_emotional | 39 | 11.85 ± 3.48 (4 - 18) | 11.42 ± 2.87 (7 - 17) | 12.25 ± 4.01 (4 - 18) | 0.465 |
mhc_social | 39 | 15.26 ± 4.89 (6 - 25) | 15.68 ± 4.50 (8 - 25) | 14.85 ± 5.32 (6 - 23) | 0.601 |
mhc_psychological | 39 | 23.08 ± 5.89 (6 - 36) | 22.63 ± 5.45 (13 - 33) | 23.50 ± 6.39 (6 - 36) | 0.651 |
resilisnce | 39 | 17.23 ± 4.80 (6 - 25) | 17.16 ± 4.48 (6 - 24) | 17.30 ± 5.20 (7 - 25) | 0.928 |
social_provision | 39 | 13.74 ± 3.21 (5 - 20) | 13.79 ± 2.80 (10 - 20) | 13.70 ± 3.63 (5 - 19) | 0.932 |
els_value_living | 39 | 17.38 ± 3.02 (5 - 23) | 17.26 ± 1.82 (13 - 20) | 17.50 ± 3.89 (5 - 23) | 0.810 |
els_life_fulfill | 39 | 13.26 ± 3.38 (4 - 18) | 12.58 ± 3.31 (5 - 17) | 13.90 ± 3.40 (4 - 18) | 0.227 |
els | 39 | 30.64 ± 5.70 (9 - 40) | 29.84 ± 4.14 (22 - 36) | 31.40 ± 6.89 (9 - 40) | 0.400 |
social_connect | 39 | 26.31 ± 10.41 (8 - 48) | 26.00 ± 9.10 (8 - 45) | 26.60 ± 11.75 (8 - 48) | 0.860 |
shs_agency | 39 | 14.46 ± 4.76 (3 - 20) | 14.42 ± 4.03 (3 - 20) | 14.50 ± 5.47 (3 - 20) | 0.960 |
shs_pathway | 39 | 16.92 ± 3.69 (4 - 22) | 16.63 ± 2.91 (9 - 21) | 17.20 ± 4.37 (4 - 22) | 0.637 |
shs | 39 | 31.38 ± 7.78 (7 - 42) | 31.05 ± 6.51 (16 - 41) | 31.70 ± 8.99 (7 - 42) | 0.799 |
esteem | 39 | 12.62 ± 1.16 (10 - 15) | 12.84 ± 0.90 (11 - 14) | 12.40 ± 1.35 (10 - 15) | 0.240 |
mlq_search | 39 | 15.51 ± 3.19 (3 - 21) | 15.79 ± 2.62 (12 - 21) | 15.25 ± 3.71 (3 - 20) | 0.605 |
mlq_presence | 39 | 13.90 ± 4.00 (3 - 21) | 14.79 ± 2.20 (12 - 19) | 13.05 ± 5.08 (3 - 21) | 0.178 |
mlq | 39 | 29.41 ± 6.47 (6 - 41) | 30.58 ± 4.59 (25 - 40) | 28.30 ± 7.81 (6 - 41) | 0.277 |
empower | 39 | 20.26 ± 4.28 (6 - 28) | 20.74 ± 3.07 (14 - 24) | 19.80 ± 5.22 (6 - 28) | 0.502 |
ismi_resistance | 39 | 15.08 ± 2.87 (5 - 20) | 15.16 ± 2.17 (12 - 19) | 15.00 ± 3.46 (5 - 20) | 0.866 |
ismi_discrimation | 39 | 11.18 ± 3.31 (5 - 19) | 12.11 ± 3.14 (5 - 17) | 10.30 ± 3.29 (5 - 19) | 0.089 |
sss_affective | 39 | 9.49 ± 4.32 (3 - 18) | 9.84 ± 3.62 (3 - 15) | 9.15 ± 4.97 (3 - 18) | 0.624 |
sss_behavior | 39 | 9.62 ± 4.53 (3 - 18) | 10.32 ± 4.45 (3 - 18) | 8.95 ± 4.63 (3 - 18) | 0.354 |
sss_cognitive | 39 | 7.95 ± 4.13 (3 - 18) | 7.58 ± 3.81 (3 - 15) | 8.30 ± 4.49 (3 - 18) | 0.592 |
sss | 39 | 27.05 ± 12.07 (9 - 54) | 27.74 ± 10.42 (9 - 44) | 26.40 ± 13.69 (9 - 54) | 0.734 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.58 | 0.277 | 3.04, 4.12 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.079 | 0.387 | -0.837, 0.680 | 0.839 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.142 | 0.462 | -0.763, 1.05 | 0.768 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.581 | 0.703 | -0.798, 1.96 | 0.438 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.5 | 0.632 | 17.3, 19.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.226 | 0.882 | -1.96, 1.50 | 0.799 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.601 | 0.606 | -1.79, 0.587 | 0.366 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.47 | 0.925 | -0.340, 3.29 | 0.171 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 31.0 | 1.020 | 29.0, 33.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.550 | 1.425 | -2.24, 3.34 | 0.702 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.190 | 1.061 | -2.27, 1.89 | 0.865 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.802 | 1.619 | -2.37, 3.98 | 0.641 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.5 | 0.464 | 11.6, 13.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.376 | 0.648 | -1.65, 0.894 | 0.565 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.849 | 0.597 | -2.02, 0.320 | 0.209 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.593 | 0.910 | -1.19, 2.38 | 0.541 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 18.1 | 0.684 | 16.8, 19.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.355 | 0.955 | -2.23, 1.52 | 0.712 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.309 | 0.647 | -1.58, 0.959 | 0.651 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.464 | 0.987 | -1.47, 2.40 | 0.656 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.744 | 12.0, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.079 | 1.039 | -1.96, 2.12 | 0.940 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.027 | 0.643 | -1.23, 1.29 | 0.968 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.762 | 0.981 | -1.16, 2.68 | 0.469 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 11.1 | 0.553 | 10.0, 12.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.66 | 0.773 | -3.17, -0.141 | 0.038 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.85 | 1.036 | -3.88, 0.180 | 0.109 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 3.54 | 1.574 | 0.458, 6.63 | 0.051 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.112 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 28.5 | 2.461 | 23.7, 33.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.27 | 3.437 | -4.46, 9.01 | 0.512 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -2.80 | 1.633 | -6.00, 0.403 | 0.147 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 3.81 | 2.493 | -1.08, 8.69 | 0.186 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 24.1 | 1.157 | 21.8, 26.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.60 | 1.615 | -4.77, 1.56 | 0.328 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.71 | 0.877 | -3.42, 0.011 | 0.109 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.59 | 1.338 | -1.03, 4.22 | 0.287 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 27.8 | 1.296 | 25.3, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.99 | 1.809 | -5.54, 1.55 | 0.278 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -3.37 | 1.202 | -5.72, -1.01 | 0.036 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 4.87 | 1.835 | 1.28, 8.47 | 0.043 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 20.5 | 1.604 | 17.3, 23.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.23 | 2.240 | -2.16, 6.62 | 0.327 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 3.01 | 1.568 | -0.058, 6.09 | 0.112 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.862 | 2.393 | -5.55, 3.83 | 0.733 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 11.4 | 0.782 | 9.89, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.829 | 1.092 | -1.31, 2.97 | 0.452 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.11 | 1.867 | -2.55, 4.77 | 0.572 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.88 | 2.813 | -3.63, 7.39 | 0.521 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.070 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.7 | 1.230 | 13.3, 18.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.834 | 1.718 | -4.20, 2.53 | 0.630 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 3.38 | 2.437 | -1.39, 8.16 | 0.184 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -4.48 | 3.702 | -11.7, 2.78 | 0.243 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.051 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 22.6 | 1.354 | 20.0, 25.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.868 | 1.891 | -2.84, 4.57 | 0.648 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.74 | 3.090 | -4.31, 7.80 | 0.581 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.21 | 4.671 | -11.4, 6.95 | 0.643 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 1.109 | 15.0, 19.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.142 | 1.548 | -2.89, 3.18 | 0.927 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.314 | 0.926 | -1.50, 2.13 | 0.748 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.78 | 1.413 | -5.55, -0.006 | 0.105 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.737 | 12.3, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.089 | 1.030 | -2.11, 1.93 | 0.931 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.197 | 0.609 | -1.39, 0.996 | 0.759 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.936 | 0.930 | -0.887, 2.76 | 0.360 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 17.3 | 0.700 | 15.9, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.237 | 0.977 | -1.68, 2.15 | 0.810 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.232 | 0.412 | -1.04, 0.575 | 0.597 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.058 | 0.628 | -1.29, 1.17 | 0.930 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.764 | 11.1, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.32 | 1.067 | -0.771, 3.41 | 0.224 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.739 | 0.865 | -0.957, 2.43 | 0.432 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.439 | 1.320 | -3.03, 2.15 | 0.753 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 1.309 | 27.3, 32.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.56 | 1.828 | -2.03, 5.14 | 0.400 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.408 | 1.076 | -1.70, 2.52 | 0.720 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.502 | 1.642 | -3.72, 2.72 | 0.772 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.0 | 2.417 | 21.3, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.600 | 3.375 | -6.01, 7.21 | 0.860 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 4.52 | 1.362 | 1.85, 7.19 | 0.020 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.87 | 2.079 | -2.21, 5.94 | 0.410 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 1.105 | 12.3, 16.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.079 | 1.543 | -2.95, 3.10 | 0.959 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.53 | 0.827 | 0.915, 4.16 | 0.028 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.97 | 1.262 | -4.44, 0.503 | 0.179 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.844 | 15.0, 18.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.568 | 1.179 | -1.74, 2.88 | 0.632 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.02 | 0.970 | -0.883, 2.92 | 0.343 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.271 | 1.479 | -3.17, 2.63 | 0.862 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 31.1 | 1.804 | 27.5, 34.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.647 | 2.520 | -4.29, 5.59 | 0.799 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 3.52 | 0.885 | 1.78, 5.25 | 0.011 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.68 | 1.352 | -5.33, -0.032 | 0.104 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.260 | 12.3, 13.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.442 | 0.364 | -1.15, 0.271 | 0.231 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.215 | 0.600 | -0.962, 1.39 | 0.729 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.160 | 0.907 | -1.94, 1.62 | 0.864 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.045 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 15.8 | 0.738 | 14.3, 17.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.539 | 1.030 | -2.56, 1.48 | 0.604 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.240 | 1.108 | -1.93, 2.41 | 0.837 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.470 | 1.688 | -2.84, 3.78 | 0.791 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.905 | 13.0, 16.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.74 | 1.263 | -4.22, 0.737 | 0.177 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.158 | 0.755 | -1.64, 1.32 | 0.842 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.21 | 1.153 | -3.47, 1.05 | 0.342 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.062 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 30.6 | 1.476 | 27.7, 33.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.28 | 2.061 | -6.32, 1.76 | 0.276 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.180 | 1.729 | -3.21, 3.57 | 0.921 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.688 | 2.637 | -5.86, 4.48 | 0.804 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 20.7 | 0.979 | 18.8, 22.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.937 | 1.368 | -3.62, 1.74 | 0.498 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.422 | 0.741 | -1.87, 1.03 | 0.594 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.463 | 1.131 | -2.68, 1.75 | 0.699 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 0.637 | 13.9, 16.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.158 | 0.889 | -1.90, 1.58 | 0.860 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.932 | 1.277 | -3.43, 1.57 | 0.502 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.49 | 1.939 | -2.31, 5.29 | 0.478 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.1 | 0.718 | 10.7, 13.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.81 | 1.003 | -3.77, 0.160 | 0.080 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.04 | 1.294 | -3.58, 1.49 | 0.469 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.12 | 1.969 | -2.74, 4.98 | 0.602 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.071 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 9.84 | 0.997 | 7.89, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.692 | 1.393 | -3.42, 2.04 | 0.622 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.036 | 0.822 | -1.65, 1.57 | 0.967 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.652 | 1.254 | -3.11, 1.81 | 0.626 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.3 | 1.035 | 8.29, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.37 | 1.445 | -4.20, 1.47 | 0.351 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.559 | 0.881 | -2.28, 1.17 | 0.554 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.086 | 1.344 | -2.72, 2.55 | 0.952 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 7.58 | 0.949 | 5.72, 9.44 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.721 | 1.326 | -1.88, 3.32 | 0.590 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.49 | 1.402 | -0.257, 5.24 | 0.138 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.91 | 2.136 | -8.10, 0.272 | 0.128 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.033 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 27.7 | 2.787 | 22.3, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.34 | 3.892 | -8.96, 6.29 | 0.733 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.65 | 2.524 | -3.30, 6.60 | 0.543 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -4.03 | 3.853 | -11.6, 3.52 | 0.343 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.58 (95% CI [3.04, 4.12], t(40) = 12.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.68], t(40) = -0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.05], t(40) = 0.31, p = 0.758; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.89])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.96], t(40) = 0.83, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.53 (95% CI [17.29, 19.76], t(40) = 29.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.96, 1.50], t(40) = -0.26, p = 0.798; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.79, 0.59], t(40) = -0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.34, 3.29], t(40) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.86e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.00 (95% CI [29.00, 33.00], t(40) = 30.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.24, 3.34], t(40) = 0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-2.27, 1.89], t(40) = -0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-2.37, 3.98], t(40) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.53 (95% CI [11.62, 13.44], t(40) = 27.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.65, 0.89], t(40) = -0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.32], t(40) = -1.42, p = 0.155; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.38], t(40) = 0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.11 (95% CI [16.76, 19.45], t(40) = 26.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.23, 1.52], t(40) = -0.37, p = 0.710; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.96], t(40) = -0.48, p = 0.633; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.40], t(40) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.82])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.42 (95% CI [11.96, 14.88], t(40) = 18.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.96, 2.12], t(40) = 0.08, p = 0.939; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.29], t(40) = 0.04, p = 0.967; Std. beta = 8.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.16, 2.68], t(40) = 0.78, p = 0.438; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.83])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.11 (95% CI [10.02, 12.19], t(40) = 20.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-3.17, -0.14], t(40) = -2.14, p = 0.032; Std. beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.27, -0.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.85, 95% CI [-3.88, 0.18], t(40) = -1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.54, 95% CI [0.46, 6.63], t(40) = 2.25, p = 0.024; Std. beta = 1.42, 95% CI [0.18, 2.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.53 (95% CI [23.70, 33.35], t(40) = 11.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [-4.46, 9.01], t(40) = 0.66, p = 0.508; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.85])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.80, 95% CI [-6.00, 0.40], t(40) = -1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.81, 95% CI [-1.08, 8.69], t(40) = 1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.82])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.05 (95% CI [21.79, 26.32], t(40) = 20.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-4.77, 1.56], t(40) = -0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-3.42, 0.01], t(40) = -1.95, p = 0.052; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.36e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-1.03, 4.22], t(40) = 1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.88])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.30, 30.38], t(40) = 21.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.99, 95% CI [-5.54, 1.55], t(40) = -1.10, p = 0.271; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.37, 95% CI [-5.72, -1.01], t(40) = -2.80, p = 0.005; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.04, -0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.87, 95% CI [1.28, 8.47], t(40) = 2.66, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.88, 95% CI [0.23, 1.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.47 (95% CI [17.33, 23.62], t(40) = 12.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.23, 95% CI [-2.16, 6.62], t(40) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.95])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.01, 95% CI [-0.06, 6.09], t(40) = 1.92, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-8.34e-03, 0.88])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-5.55, 3.83], t(40) = -0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.09) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.42 (95% CI [9.89, 12.95], t(40) = 14.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.31, 2.97], t(40) = 0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.87])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-2.55, 4.77], t(40) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.88, 95% CI [-3.63, 7.39], t(40) = 0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.68 (95% CI [13.27, 18.10], t(40) = 12.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-4.20, 2.53], t(40) = -0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.38, 95% CI [-1.39, 8.16], t(40) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.48, 95% CI [-11.74, 2.78], t(40) = -1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.16, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.21) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.63 (95% CI [19.98, 25.29], t(40) = 16.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-2.84, 4.57], t(40) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.80])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.74, 95% CI [-4.31, 7.80], t(40) = 0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.21, 95% CI [-11.36, 6.95], t(40) = -0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.99, 1.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.16 (95% CI [14.98, 19.33], t(40) = 15.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-2.89, 3.18], t(40) = 0.09, p = 0.927; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.50, 2.13], t(40) = 0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.78, 95% CI [-5.55, -5.66e-03], t(40) = -1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.21, -1.23e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.79 (95% CI [12.34, 15.23], t(40) = 18.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-2.11, 1.93], t(40) = -0.09, p = 0.931; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.39, 1.00], t(40) = -0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.76], t(40) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.92])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.96) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.52e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.26 (95% CI [15.89, 18.63], t(40) = 24.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.15], t(40) = 0.24, p = 0.808; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.57], t(40) = -0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.17], t(40) = -0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.58 (95% CI [11.08, 14.08], t(40) = 16.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.77, 3.41], t(40) = 1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.05])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.96, 2.43], t(40) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.75])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-3.03, 2.15], t(40) = -0.33, p = 0.740; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.84 (95% CI [27.28, 32.41], t(40) = 22.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.56, 95% CI [-2.03, 5.14], t(40) = 0.85, p = 0.394; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.93])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.70, 2.52], t(40) = 0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-3.72, 2.72], t(40) = -0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.97) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.00 (95% CI [21.26, 30.74], t(40) = 10.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-6.01, 7.21], t(40) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.52, 95% CI [1.85, 7.19], t(40) = 3.32, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [0.18, 0.71])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.87, 95% CI [-2.21, 5.94], t(40) = 0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [12.25, 16.59], t(40) = 13.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-2.95, 3.10], t(40) = 0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.53, 95% CI [0.91, 4.16], t(40) = 3.07, p = 0.002; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [0.20, 0.89])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.97, 95% CI [-4.44, 0.50], t(40) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.63 (95% CI [14.98, 18.29], t(40) = 19.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.74, 2.88], t(40) = 0.48, p = 0.630; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.81])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.88, 2.92], t(40) = 1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.83])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-3.17, 2.63], t(40) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.74])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.97) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.05 (95% CI [27.52, 34.59], t(40) = 17.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-4.29, 5.59], t(40) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.52, 95% CI [1.78, 5.25], t(40) = 3.97, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.24, 0.69])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.68, 95% CI [-5.33, -0.03], t(40) = -1.98, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.71, -4.27e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.20) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.84 (95% CI [12.33, 13.35], t(40) = 49.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.27], t(40) = -1.22, p = 0.224; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.39], t(40) = 0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.94, 1.62], t(40) = -0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.73, 1.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.79 (95% CI [14.34, 17.24], t(40) = 21.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.56, 1.48], t(40) = -0.52, p = 0.601; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.41], t(40) = 0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.78])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-2.84, 3.78], t(40) = 0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.79 (95% CI [13.02, 16.56], t(40) = 16.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.74, 95% CI [-4.22, 0.74], t(40) = -1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.32], t(40) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-3.47, 1.05], t(40) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.58 (95% CI [27.69, 33.47], t(40) = 20.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.28, 95% CI [-6.32, 1.76], t(40) = -1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-3.21, 3.57], t(40) = 0.10, p = 0.917; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.57])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-5.86, 4.48], t(40) = -0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.72])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.74 (95% CI [18.82, 22.66], t(40) = 21.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-3.62, 1.74], t(40) = -0.68, p = 0.493; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.87, 1.03], t(40) = -0.57, p = 0.569; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.68, 1.75], t(40) = -0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.16 (95% CI [13.91, 16.41], t(40) = 23.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.90, 1.58], t(40) = -0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-3.43, 1.57], t(40) = -0.73, p = 0.466; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.59])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-2.31, 5.29], t(40) = 0.77, p = 0.441; Std. beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.98])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.11 (95% CI [10.70, 13.51], t(40) = 16.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.81, 95% CI [-3.77, 0.16], t(40) = -1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.22, 0.05])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-3.58, 1.49], t(40) = -0.81, p = 0.420; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-2.74, 4.98], t(40) = 0.57, p = 0.570; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.84 (95% CI [7.89, 11.80], t(40) = 9.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-3.42, 2.04], t(40) = -0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.65, 1.57], t(40) = -0.04, p = 0.965; Std. beta = -8.31e-03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-3.11, 1.81], t(40) = -0.52, p = 0.603; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.32 (95% CI [8.29, 12.34], t(40) = 9.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-4.20, 1.47], t(40) = -0.95, p = 0.345; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.17], t(40) = -0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-2.72, 2.55], t(40) = -0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.58 (95% CI [5.72, 9.44], t(40) = 7.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-1.88, 3.32], t(40) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.81])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.49, 95% CI [-0.26, 5.24], t(40) = 1.78, p = 0.076; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.91, 95% CI [-8.10, 0.27], t(40) = -1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = -0.95, 95% CI [-1.97, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.74 (95% CI [22.27, 33.20], t(40) = 9.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-8.96, 6.29], t(40) = -0.34, p = 0.731; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.65, 95% CI [-3.30, 6.60], t(40) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.55])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.03, 95% CI [-11.59, 3.52], t(40) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 147.794 | 153.280 | -70.897 | 141.794 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 151.538 | 162.510 | -69.769 | 139.538 | 2.256 | 3 | 0.521 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 216.700 | 222.186 | -105.350 | 210.700 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 219.795 | 230.767 | -103.898 | 207.795 | 2.905 | 3 | 0.407 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 259.423 | 264.909 | -126.712 | 253.423 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 264.988 | 275.960 | -126.494 | 252.988 | 0.435 | 3 | 0.933 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 192.138 | 197.624 | -93.069 | 186.138 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 195.422 | 206.394 | -91.711 | 183.422 | 2.716 | 3 | 0.438 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 221.322 | 226.808 | -107.661 | 215.322 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 226.890 | 237.861 | -107.445 | 214.890 | 0.433 | 3 | 0.933 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 228.803 | 234.289 | -111.401 | 222.803 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 233.418 | 244.389 | -110.709 | 221.418 | 1.385 | 3 | 0.709 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 218.623 | 224.109 | -106.311 | 212.623 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 216.721 | 227.693 | -102.361 | 204.721 | 7.902 | 3 | 0.048 |
symptom | null | 3 | 337.922 | 343.407 | -165.961 | 331.922 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 339.748 | 350.720 | -163.874 | 327.748 | 4.173 | 3 | 0.243 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 270.848 | 276.334 | -132.424 | 264.848 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 272.139 | 283.111 | -130.070 | 260.139 | 4.709 | 3 | 0.194 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 287.206 | 292.692 | -140.603 | 281.206 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 285.398 | 296.370 | -136.699 | 273.398 | 7.809 | 3 | 0.050 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 305.947 | 311.433 | -149.974 | 299.947 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 305.757 | 316.729 | -146.879 | 293.757 | 6.190 | 3 | 0.103 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 247.175 | 252.661 | -120.587 | 241.175 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 251.102 | 262.074 | -119.551 | 239.102 | 2.072 | 3 | 0.558 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 287.950 | 293.436 | -140.975 | 281.950 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 290.996 | 301.968 | -139.498 | 278.996 | 2.954 | 3 | 0.399 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 295.871 | 301.357 | -144.936 | 289.871 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 301.383 | 312.355 | -144.692 | 289.383 | 0.488 | 3 | 0.922 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 268.401 | 273.887 | -131.200 | 262.401 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 269.595 | 280.567 | -128.798 | 257.595 | 4.805 | 3 | 0.187 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 227.419 | 232.905 | -110.710 | 221.419 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 231.920 | 242.892 | -109.960 | 219.920 | 1.500 | 3 | 0.682 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 217.365 | 222.851 | -105.683 | 211.365 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 222.374 | 233.346 | -105.187 | 210.374 | 0.992 | 3 | 0.803 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 235.947 | 241.433 | -114.974 | 229.947 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 239.588 | 250.559 | -113.794 | 227.588 | 2.360 | 3 | 0.501 |
els | null | 3 | 279.567 | 285.053 | -136.784 | 273.567 | |||
els | random | 6 | 284.671 | 295.643 | -136.335 | 272.671 | 0.896 | 3 | 0.826 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 340.962 | 346.448 | -167.481 | 334.962 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 335.795 | 346.767 | -161.897 | 323.795 | 11.167 | 3 | 0.011 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 269.697 | 275.183 | -131.848 | 263.697 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 267.768 | 278.740 | -127.884 | 255.768 | 7.929 | 3 | 0.048 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 244.945 | 250.431 | -119.473 | 238.945 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 248.900 | 259.872 | -118.450 | 236.900 | 2.045 | 3 | 0.563 |
shs | null | 3 | 311.552 | 317.038 | -152.776 | 305.552 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 306.978 | 317.950 | -147.489 | 294.978 | 10.574 | 3 | 0.014 |
esteem | null | 3 | 145.932 | 151.418 | -69.966 | 139.932 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 149.755 | 160.727 | -68.878 | 137.755 | 2.176 | 3 | 0.537 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 234.846 | 240.332 | -114.423 | 228.846 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 240.194 | 251.166 | -114.097 | 228.194 | 0.652 | 3 | 0.885 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 249.716 | 255.202 | -121.858 | 243.716 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 250.879 | 261.851 | -119.440 | 238.879 | 4.836 | 3 | 0.184 |
mlq | null | 3 | 296.150 | 301.636 | -145.075 | 290.150 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 300.607 | 311.579 | -144.304 | 288.607 | 1.543 | 3 | 0.672 |
empower | null | 3 | 253.054 | 258.540 | -123.527 | 247.054 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 256.810 | 267.782 | -122.405 | 244.810 | 2.244 | 3 | 0.523 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 225.279 | 230.765 | -109.640 | 219.279 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 230.397 | 241.369 | -109.198 | 218.397 | 0.882 | 3 | 0.830 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 237.840 | 243.326 | -115.920 | 231.840 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 240.067 | 251.039 | -114.034 | 228.067 | 3.773 | 3 | 0.287 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 254.524 | 260.010 | -124.262 | 248.524 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 259.668 | 270.640 | -123.834 | 247.668 | 0.856 | 3 | 0.836 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 259.441 | 264.927 | -126.721 | 253.441 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 263.502 | 274.474 | -125.751 | 251.502 | 1.939 | 3 | 0.585 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 261.532 | 267.018 | -127.766 | 255.532 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 263.143 | 274.115 | -125.571 | 251.143 | 4.389 | 3 | 0.222 |
sss | null | 3 | 350.911 | 356.397 | -172.455 | 344.911 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 355.514 | 366.486 | -171.757 | 343.514 | 1.396 | 3 | 0.706 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 19 | 3.58 ± 1.21 | 20 | 3.50 ± 1.21 | 0.839 | 0.112 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 4 | 3.72 ± 1.03 | -0.202 | 3 | 4.22 ± 1.02 | -1.030 | 0.531 | -0.715 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 19 | 18.53 ± 2.75 | 20 | 18.30 ± 2.75 | 0.799 | 0.259 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 4 | 17.93 ± 1.67 | 0.687 | 3 | 19.17 ± 1.56 | -0.996 | 0.322 | -1.425 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 19 | 31.00 ± 4.45 | 20 | 31.55 ± 4.45 | 0.702 | -0.358 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 4 | 30.81 ± 2.81 | 0.124 | 3 | 32.16 ± 2.64 | -0.398 | 0.522 | -0.879 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 19 | 12.53 ± 2.02 | 20 | 12.15 ± 2.02 | 0.565 | 0.429 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 4 | 11.68 ± 1.44 | 0.968 | 3 | 11.89 ± 1.38 | 0.292 | 0.843 | -0.247 |
ras_goal | 1st | 19 | 18.11 ± 2.98 | 20 | 17.75 ± 2.98 | 0.712 | 0.381 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 4 | 17.80 ± 1.80 | 0.331 | 3 | 17.91 ± 1.67 | -0.166 | 0.935 | -0.117 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 19 | 13.42 ± 3.24 | 20 | 13.50 ± 3.24 | 0.940 | -0.085 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 4 | 13.45 ± 1.89 | -0.029 | 3 | 14.29 ± 1.74 | -0.853 | 0.548 | -0.910 |
ras_domination | 1st | 19 | 11.11 ± 2.41 | 20 | 9.45 ± 2.41 | 0.038 | 1.026 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 4 | 9.26 ± 2.27 | 1.146 | 3 | 11.14 ± 2.26 | -1.049 | 0.291 | -1.170 |
symptom | 1st | 19 | 28.53 ± 10.73 | 20 | 30.80 ± 10.73 | 0.512 | -0.976 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 4 | 25.73 ± 5.73 | 1.200 | 3 | 31.81 ± 5.15 | -0.434 | 0.150 | -2.610 |
slof_work | 1st | 19 | 24.05 ± 5.04 | 20 | 22.45 ± 5.04 | 0.327 | 1.277 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 4 | 22.35 ± 2.80 | 1.360 | 3 | 22.34 ± 2.55 | 0.090 | 0.996 | 0.007 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 19 | 27.84 ± 5.65 | 20 | 25.85 ± 5.65 | 0.278 | 1.150 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 4 | 24.47 ± 3.38 | 1.944 | 3 | 27.35 ± 3.14 | -0.868 | 0.258 | -1.662 |
satisfaction | 1st | 19 | 20.47 ± 6.99 | 20 | 22.70 ± 6.99 | 0.327 | -0.983 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 4 | 23.49 ± 4.28 | -1.331 | 3 | 24.85 ± 4.00 | -0.951 | 0.670 | -0.602 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 19 | 11.42 ± 3.41 | 20 | 12.25 ± 3.41 | 0.452 | -0.246 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 4 | 12.53 ± 3.91 | -0.329 | 3 | 15.24 ± 3.94 | -0.887 | 0.372 | -0.804 |
mhc_social | 1st | 19 | 15.68 ± 5.36 | 20 | 14.85 ± 5.36 | 0.630 | 0.216 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 4 | 19.07 ± 5.30 | -0.876 | 3 | 13.75 ± 5.30 | 0.283 | 0.206 | 1.375 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 19 | 22.63 ± 5.90 | 20 | 23.50 ± 5.90 | 0.648 | -0.164 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 4 | 24.37 ± 6.60 | -0.329 | 3 | 23.04 ± 6.66 | 0.088 | 0.794 | 0.253 |
resilisnce | 1st | 19 | 17.16 ± 4.83 | 20 | 17.30 ± 4.83 | 0.927 | -0.107 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 4 | 17.47 ± 2.77 | -0.236 | 3 | 14.84 ± 2.55 | 1.852 | 0.205 | 1.981 |
social_provision | 1st | 19 | 13.79 ± 3.21 | 20 | 13.70 ± 3.21 | 0.931 | 0.102 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 4 | 13.59 ± 1.84 | 0.226 | 3 | 14.44 ± 1.69 | -0.844 | 0.533 | -0.968 |
els_value_living | 1st | 19 | 17.26 ± 3.05 | 20 | 17.50 ± 3.05 | 0.810 | -0.404 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 4 | 17.03 ± 1.58 | 0.396 | 3 | 17.21 ± 1.41 | 0.495 | 0.876 | -0.305 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 19 | 12.58 ± 3.33 | 20 | 13.90 ± 3.33 | 0.224 | -1.049 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 4 | 13.32 ± 2.20 | -0.587 | 3 | 14.20 ± 2.08 | -0.238 | 0.595 | -0.701 |
els | 1st | 19 | 29.84 ± 5.71 | 20 | 31.40 ± 5.71 | 0.400 | -1.009 | ||
els | 2nd | 4 | 30.25 ± 3.26 | -0.264 | 3 | 31.31 ± 2.99 | 0.061 | 0.660 | -0.684 |
social_connect | 1st | 19 | 26.00 ± 10.53 | 20 | 26.60 ± 10.53 | 0.860 | -0.309 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 4 | 30.52 ± 5.41 | -2.332 | 3 | 32.99 ± 4.80 | -3.294 | 0.528 | -1.272 |
shs_agency | 1st | 19 | 14.42 ± 4.82 | 20 | 14.50 ± 4.82 | 0.959 | -0.067 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 4 | 16.96 ± 2.66 | -2.142 | 3 | 15.06 ± 2.42 | -0.477 | 0.335 | 1.598 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 19 | 16.63 ± 3.68 | 20 | 17.20 ± 3.68 | 0.632 | -0.402 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 4 | 17.65 ± 2.44 | -0.720 | 3 | 17.95 ± 2.32 | -0.528 | 0.872 | -0.210 |
shs | 1st | 19 | 31.05 ± 7.86 | 20 | 31.70 ± 7.86 | 0.799 | -0.515 | ||
shs | 2nd | 4 | 34.57 ± 3.94 | -2.796 | 3 | 32.54 ± 3.46 | -0.665 | 0.473 | 1.617 |
esteem | 1st | 19 | 12.84 ± 1.14 | 20 | 12.40 ± 1.14 | 0.231 | 0.426 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 4 | 13.06 ± 1.28 | -0.207 | 3 | 12.45 ± 1.29 | -0.053 | 0.544 | 0.580 |
mlq_search | 1st | 19 | 15.79 ± 3.22 | 20 | 15.25 ± 3.22 | 0.604 | 0.326 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 4 | 16.03 ± 2.53 | -0.145 | 3 | 15.96 ± 2.47 | -0.428 | 0.971 | 0.042 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 19 | 14.79 ± 3.94 | 20 | 13.05 ± 3.94 | 0.177 | 1.604 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 4 | 14.63 ± 2.26 | 0.146 | 3 | 11.68 ± 2.08 | 1.261 | 0.086 | 2.719 |
mlq | 1st | 19 | 30.58 ± 6.43 | 20 | 28.30 ± 6.43 | 0.276 | 0.903 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 4 | 30.76 ± 4.32 | -0.071 | 3 | 27.79 ± 4.12 | 0.201 | 0.369 | 1.176 |
empower | 1st | 19 | 20.74 ± 4.27 | 20 | 19.80 ± 4.27 | 0.498 | 0.883 | ||
empower | 2nd | 4 | 20.31 ± 2.37 | 0.398 | 3 | 18.92 ± 2.15 | 0.834 | 0.422 | 1.319 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 19 | 15.16 ± 2.78 | 20 | 15.00 ± 2.78 | 0.860 | 0.078 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 4 | 14.23 ± 2.77 | 0.458 | 3 | 15.56 ± 2.77 | -0.276 | 0.536 | -0.657 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 19 | 12.11 ± 3.13 | 20 | 10.30 ± 3.13 | 0.080 | 0.904 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 4 | 11.06 ± 2.85 | 0.522 | 3 | 10.38 ± 2.82 | -0.038 | 0.755 | 0.344 |
sss_affective | 1st | 19 | 9.84 ± 4.35 | 20 | 9.15 ± 4.35 | 0.622 | 0.587 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 4 | 9.81 ± 2.48 | 0.031 | 3 | 8.46 ± 2.28 | 0.583 | 0.465 | 1.139 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 19 | 10.32 ± 4.51 | 20 | 8.95 ± 4.51 | 0.351 | 1.080 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 4 | 9.76 ± 2.61 | 0.441 | 3 | 8.31 ± 2.40 | 0.509 | 0.453 | 1.147 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 19 | 7.58 ± 4.14 | 20 | 8.30 ± 4.14 | 0.590 | -0.345 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 4 | 10.07 ± 3.22 | -1.191 | 3 | 6.88 ± 3.14 | 0.681 | 0.209 | 1.527 |
sss | 1st | 19 | 27.74 ± 12.15 | 20 | 26.40 ± 12.15 | 0.733 | 0.368 | ||
sss | 2nd | 4 | 29.39 ± 7.20 | -0.454 | 3 | 24.02 ± 6.67 | 0.656 | 0.319 | 1.478 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(38.95) = -0.20, p = 0.839, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.70)
2st
t(13.89) = 0.64, p = 0.531, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.18)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(37.53) = -0.26, p = 0.799, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.01 to 1.56)
2st
t(20.46) = 1.01, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -1.42, 95% CI (-1.31 to 3.81)
ras_confidence
1st
t(37.63) = 0.39, p = 0.702, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-2.34 to 3.44)
2st
t(18.50) = 0.65, p = 0.522, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-2.99 to 5.69)
ras_willingness
1st
t(38.03) = -0.58, p = 0.565, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.94)
2st
t(14.94) = 0.20, p = 0.843, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-2.07 to 2.50)
ras_goal
1st
t(37.51) = -0.37, p = 0.712, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.58)
2st
t(20.83) = 0.08, p = 0.935, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.64 to 2.86)
ras_reliance
1st
t(37.42) = 0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.03 to 2.18)
2st
t(23.47) = 0.61, p = 0.548, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.69)
ras_domination
1st
t(39.66) = -2.14, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 1.03, 95% CI (-3.22 to -0.09)
2st
t(15.36) = 1.09, p = 0.291, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (-1.78 to 5.56)
symptom
1st
t(37.24) = 0.66, p = 0.512, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-4.69 to 9.24)
2st
t(32.30) = 1.47, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -2.61, 95% CI (-2.32 to 14.48)
slof_work
1st
t(37.32) = -0.99, p = 0.327, Cohen d = 1.28, 95% CI (-4.87 to 1.67)
2st
t(27.74) = -0.00, p = 0.996, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-4.17 to 4.15)
slof_relationship
1st
t(37.49) = -1.10, p = 0.278, Cohen d = 1.15, 95% CI (-5.66 to 1.67)
2st
t(21.36) = 1.16, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -1.66, 95% CI (-2.27 to 8.03)
satisfaction
1st
t(37.55) = 0.99, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-2.31 to 6.76)
2st
t(19.98) = 0.43, p = 0.670, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-5.21 to 7.93)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(41.99) = 0.76, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.37 to 3.03)
2st
t(41.80) = 0.90, p = 0.372, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-3.35 to 8.77)
mhc_social
1st
t(40.12) = -0.49, p = 0.630, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-4.31 to 2.64)
2st
t(17.12) = -1.31, p = 0.206, Cohen d = 1.37, 95% CI (-13.85 to 3.22)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(41.62) = 0.46, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.95 to 4.69)
2st
t(31.98) = -0.26, p = 0.794, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-11.66 to 8.98)
resilisnce
1st
t(37.39) = 0.09, p = 0.927, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.99 to 3.28)
2st
t(24.51) = -1.30, p = 0.205, Cohen d = 1.98, 95% CI (-6.80 to 1.54)
social_provision
1st
t(37.38) = -0.09, p = 0.931, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.00)
2st
t(24.87) = 0.63, p = 0.533, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (-1.91 to 3.60)
els_value_living
1st
t(37.19) = 0.24, p = 0.810, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.22)
2st
t(36.04) = 0.16, p = 0.876, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-2.12 to 2.48)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(37.76) = 1.24, p = 0.224, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (-0.84 to 3.48)
2st
t(16.81) = 0.54, p = 0.595, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-2.56 to 4.32)
els
1st
t(37.38) = 0.85, p = 0.400, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-2.15 to 5.26)
2st
t(25.05) = 0.45, p = 0.660, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-3.83 to 5.94)
social_connect
1st
t(37.17) = 0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-6.24 to 7.44)
2st
t(37.20) = 0.64, p = 0.528, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (-5.38 to 10.31)
shs_agency
1st
t(37.31) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-3.05 to 3.21)
2st
t(28.19) = -0.98, p = 0.335, Cohen d = 1.60, 95% CI (-5.84 to 2.06)
shs_pathway
1st
t(37.79) = 0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.82 to 2.95)
2st
t(16.55) = 0.16, p = 0.872, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-3.54 to 4.13)
shs
1st
t(37.13) = 0.26, p = 0.799, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-4.46 to 5.75)
2st
t(40.06) = -0.73, p = 0.473, Cohen d = 1.62, 95% CI (-7.70 to 3.63)
esteem
1st
t(41.73) = -1.22, p = 0.231, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.29)
2st
t(34.38) = -0.61, p = 0.544, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.60 to 1.39)
mlq_search
1st
t(38.49) = -0.52, p = 0.604, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.62 to 1.55)
2st
t(13.80) = -0.04, p = 0.971, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-4.17 to 4.03)
mlq_presence
1st
t(37.39) = -1.38, p = 0.177, Cohen d = 1.60, 95% CI (-4.30 to 0.82)
2st
t(24.52) = -1.79, p = 0.086, Cohen d = 2.72, 95% CI (-6.35 to 0.45)
mlq
1st
t(37.83) = -1.11, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-6.45 to 1.89)
2st
t(16.23) = -0.92, p = 0.369, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-9.77 to 3.83)
empower
1st
t(37.32) = -0.68, p = 0.498, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-3.71 to 1.83)
2st
t(27.80) = -0.81, p = 0.422, Cohen d = 1.32, 95% CI (-4.92 to 2.12)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(40.24) = -0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.95 to 1.64)
2st
t(17.67) = 0.63, p = 0.536, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-3.12 to 5.79)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(39.40) = -1.80, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-3.83 to 0.22)
2st
t(14.65) = -0.32, p = 0.755, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-5.31 to 3.94)
sss_affective
1st
t(37.38) = -0.50, p = 0.622, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-3.51 to 2.13)
2st
t(24.95) = -0.74, p = 0.465, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-5.07 to 2.38)
sss_behavior
1st
t(37.41) = -0.95, p = 0.351, Cohen d = 1.08, 95% CI (-4.29 to 1.56)
2st
t(23.92) = -0.76, p = 0.453, Cohen d = 1.15, 95% CI (-5.38 to 2.48)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(38.43) = 0.54, p = 0.590, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.96 to 3.40)
2st
t(13.86) = -1.32, p = 0.209, Cohen d = 1.53, 95% CI (-8.40 to 2.01)
sss
1st
t(37.47) = -0.34, p = 0.733, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-9.22 to 6.55)
2st
t(22.04) = -1.02, p = 0.319, Cohen d = 1.48, 95% CI (-16.30 to 5.56)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(7.32) = 1.28, p = 0.481, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.05)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(5.49) = 1.22, p = 0.542, Cohen d = -1.00, 95% CI (-0.91 to 2.66)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(5.59) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-2.51 to 3.73)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(6.03) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.00 to 1.49)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(5.47) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.06)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(5.38) = 1.05, p = 0.680, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.68)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(8.75) = 1.31, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (-1.24 to 4.63)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(5.21) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-3.81 to 5.84)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(5.28) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.70 to 2.48)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(5.45) = 1.07, p = 0.663, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-2.04 to 5.04)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(5.51) = 1.17, p = 0.582, Cohen d = -0.95, 95% CI (-2.46 to 6.77)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(30.92) = 1.25, p = 0.444, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-1.90 to 7.87)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(10.00) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-7.93 to 5.74)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(19.51) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-8.77 to 7.84)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(5.35) = -2.27, p = 0.138, Cohen d = 1.85, 95% CI (-5.19 to 0.27)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(5.35) = 1.04, p = 0.690, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.53)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(5.16) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.93)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(5.73) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.24 to 2.84)
els
1st vs 2st
t(5.34) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-3.27 to 3.08)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(5.15) = 4.04, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -3.29, 95% CI (2.36 to 10.42)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(5.28) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.01)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(5.76) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-2.10 to 3.59)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(5.11) = 0.81, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.79 to 3.46)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(21.31) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.55 to 1.66)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(6.63) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-2.50 to 3.92)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(5.35) = -1.55, p = 0.357, Cohen d = 1.26, 95% CI (-3.60 to 0.86)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(5.80) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-5.57 to 4.56)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(5.28) = -1.02, p = 0.702, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-3.07 to 1.30)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(10.36) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-3.01 to 4.13)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(8.17) = 0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-3.61 to 3.76)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(5.34) = -0.72, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-3.11 to 1.74)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(5.37) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-3.24 to 1.95)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(6.54) = -0.84, p = 0.860, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-5.49 to 2.64)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(5.43) = -0.80, p = 0.909, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-9.82 to 5.05)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(7.10) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.30)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(5.45) = -0.97, p = 0.743, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-2.15 to 0.95)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(5.55) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.90 to 2.52)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(5.94) = -1.38, p = 0.437, Cohen d = 0.97, 95% CI (-2.36 to 0.66)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(5.44) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.96 to 1.34)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(5.35) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.67)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(8.35) = -1.65, p = 0.271, Cohen d = 1.15, 95% CI (-4.41 to 0.71)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(5.20) = -1.70, p = 0.296, Cohen d = 1.20, 95% CI (-6.98 to 1.39)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(5.26) = -1.93, p = 0.218, Cohen d = 1.36, 95% CI (-3.95 to 0.54)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(5.42) = -2.75, p = 0.074, Cohen d = 1.94, 95% CI (-6.44 to -0.30)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(5.47) = 1.89, p = 0.226, Cohen d = -1.33, 95% CI (-0.99 to 7.02)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(26.34) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-3.20 to 5.42)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(9.42) = 1.27, p = 0.468, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-2.59 to 9.36)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(17.15) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-5.57 to 9.05)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(5.33) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.06 to 2.68)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(5.32) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.36)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(5.15) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.82)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(5.67) = 0.83, p = 0.878, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.94)
els
1st vs 2st
t(5.32) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.34 to 3.16)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(5.14) = 3.30, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -2.33, 95% CI (1.03 to 8.01)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(5.26) = 3.03, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -2.14, 95% CI (0.42 to 4.65)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(5.70) = 1.02, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-1.45 to 3.49)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(5.10) = 3.96, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -2.80, 95% CI (1.25 to 5.79)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(18.57) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.63)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(6.48) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.55 to 3.03)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(5.33) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.09 to 1.77)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(5.74) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-4.22 to 4.58)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(5.26) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.32 to 1.48)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(9.72) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-4.06 to 2.19)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(7.84) = -0.75, p = 0.950, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-4.26 to 2.17)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(5.32) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.14 to 2.07)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(5.34) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-2.81 to 1.69)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(6.40) = 1.70, p = 0.275, Cohen d = -1.19, 95% CI (-1.05 to 6.03)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(5.39) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-4.80 to 8.10)